CESTAT allowed the appeal of the importer, holding that the differential duty demand was unsustainable in law. The Bench found that the goods were provisionally assessed and no order finalising such provisional assessment under s.18 of the Customs Act had been passed. Consequently, the precondition for invoking s.28 was absent, and Revenue could not confirm differential duty, particularly without issuance of a show cause notice and beyond five years. The Tribunal further noted violation of principles of natural justice, including denial of cross-examination. As the CRCL reports only indicated non-conformity with Rubber Processing Oil specifications without proper re-classification or valuation basis, the impugned demands and orders were held void and were set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal of the importer, holding that the differential duty demand was unsustainable in law. The Bench found that the goods were provisionally assessed and no order finalising such provisional assessment under s.18 of the Customs Act had been passed. Consequently, the precondition for invoking s.28 was absent, and Revenue could not confirm differential duty, particularly without issuance of a show cause notice and beyond five years. The Tribunal further noted violation of principles of natural justice, including denial of cross-examination. As the CRCL reports only indicated non-conformity with Rubber Processing Oil specifications without proper re-classification or valuation basis, the impugned demands and orders were held void and were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
